New bill could force states to allow visiting gun owners to pack heat without a permit
Source: Business Insider
The Trace
Dan Friedman, The Trace
1h
One of the first gun bills introduced in the new Congress proposes to dramatically alter the way states regulate who can carry concealed firearms within their borders.
Under the legislation filed by Congressman Richard Hudson, a North Carolina Republican, gun owners — including those from states no longer mandating training or permits for persons wishing to tote hidden pistols — could be cleared to carry in any public spaces across the country that allow guns.
. . .
But many forbid out-of-state residents from carrying concealed weapons within their borders, or only recognize permits from select states. And some cities, like New York, have strict rules about who may obtain a license to carry, with the result that very few people do.
If Hudson’s bill passes, states that set high bars for concealed carry would be compelled to welcome gun-toting visitors from “any state that recognizes its residents’ right to concealed carry,” says a Hudson spokeswoman. That includes states with more relaxed requirements, or no requirements at all.
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/visiting-gun-owners-permitless-carries-2017-1?r=UK&IR=T
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Feeling the Bern
(3,839 posts)The fascists won! We won't survive the next four years.
Merlot
(9,696 posts)carry guns! Yay!
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)Let's see if we understand this. Florida can manipulate the voter rolls without federal interference, but New York must bow to federal authority that allows Billy Bob to walk around Central Park with his Glock. Is this a great country, or what?
still_one
(92,201 posts)civil rights.
It is amazing just what convent hypocrites these assholes are
I want these jerks to stay out of California. They are not welcome
cstanleytech
(26,291 posts)this wouldnt be the first time that the Republicans have proven themselves to be hypocrites either.
Guilded Lilly
(5,591 posts)
Blue Idaho
(5,049 posts)Republicans don't actually believe in anything. As long as the check shows up they will believe whatever you want them to believe.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)Smaller government! Except when it comes to our civil and personal rights. States rights! Except when it comes to protecting us from the right-wing laws of the Federal Government. What is this shit?!
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)that the reason we don't hear from advanced civilizations in an endless universe is that - like us - the more 'intelligence' a species develops for survival, the more likely that species will self-destruct and destroy itself, its environment, its planet.
When they reach our capacity to end it all, they did and they do - just like us.
Survival of the fittest is ultimately a selfish act excluding everything else.
Give everybody a gun just seems like we are so on the right track.
Buckeye_Democrat
(14,854 posts)Radio signals diminish and blend into the background noise after awhile.
We've only been transmitting (at light speed) for a little over 100 years in a galaxy that's 100,000 light-years across (with other galaxies that are millions or billions of light-years away), and the signals will keep getting weaker the longer/farther they travel.
Dave Starsky
(5,914 posts)I seem to recall that the most powerful broadcast station ever had a broadcast power of "only" 500 kW. That's nothing compared to what is at the source of other signals we receive from deep space.
Buckeye_Democrat
(14,854 posts)much more than we do.
Proxima Centauri is the closest star to our Sun, 4.2 light-years away in a galaxy that's about 100,000 light-years across. Yet...
https://briankoberlein.com/2015/02/19/e-t-phone-home/
For example, the most distant human-made object is Voyager I, which has a transmission power of about 23 Watts, and is still detectable by radio telescopes 125 AU away. Proxima Centauri, the closest star to the Sun, is about 2,200 times more distant. Since the strength of a light signal decreases with distance following the inverse square relation, one would need a transmission power of more than 110 million Watts to transmit a signal to Proxima Centauri with the strength of Voyager to Earth. Current TV broadcasts (at least in the States) is limited to around 5 million Watts for UHF stations, and many stations aren’t nearly that powerful.
Interstellar gas and dust will diffuse the signals too.
Buckeye_Democrat
(14,854 posts)Other intelligent life might've determined that interstellar travel really isn't feasible, so why invest in high-power transmissions in the first place?
There's MANY problems to be resolved with interstellar travel.
Obviously, the distances between stars are huge!
Faster-than-light travel might forever be impossible. There's paradoxes that result in just about every FTL scenario that can be conceived if Special Relativity holds true (and it's strongly supported by experimental evidence).
Even if we could travel at close to light speed, there's the worry of colliding into a tiny dust particle that could destroy the ship at that velocity!
Dave Starsky
(5,914 posts)After evolving over thousands of millenia and finally achieving interstellar travel, we get our application to the intergalactic UN rejected because we are one of the "lowly" species that evolved on the basis of competition rather than altruism, symbiosis, or some other model. We would eventually either destroy ourselves or try to destroy one of the other members.
Buckeye_Democrat
(14,854 posts)that way.
Pretty much all life on Earth survives by consuming other life. Maybe it's an efficient way to "recycle" resources needed for life here, like some kinds of chemicals?
Still, it seems plausible that it doesn't need to be that way. If consuming other life is somehow "off limits" in another world, perhaps because it would be naturally lethal in some way, there would still be natural selection at work as the organisms develop better ways to find resources -- i.e., senses and greater intelligence.
Dave Starsky
(5,914 posts)I know that sounds like a hippie stupid thing. Crazy liberals and their love talk. Caring for each other and being brothers and sisters together--all that crazy nonsense. But I believe in all that. It is real.
There have been many times in my life where I thought I was at the end. Someone saved me. And there have been times where I knew I could step in. I just did it.
Buckeye_Democrat
(14,854 posts)from itself, most likely.
Sharing knowledge is an act of love too, as far as I'm concerned.
It might require either educating or shunning the more selfish among us, the people typically rewarded the most in our current economic system.
http://www.sciencechannel.com/tv-shows/through-the-wormhole/sharing-experiment/
Edit: My earlier post was a statement of fact, not an expression of ideology. Most life on Earth has evolved to consume other life. Like these bald eagles:
Crash2Parties
(6,017 posts)
Equinox Moon
(6,344 posts)
What idiots. Honestly! Idiots.
Stay tuned... lots more idiot stuff coming...
waddirum
(979 posts)I ever travel in these here United States. Good to know. Thanks.
McCamy Taylor
(19,240 posts)
Initech
(100,079 posts)
needledriver
(836 posts)Do you advocate that freedom of speech or religion should be exercised on a state by state basis? Are you ok with a book published in New York being illegal in Ohio? Should a Muslim from Wisconsin not be allowed in Tennessee?
More to the point - if a person has passed a background check in Kansas, and passed the Kansas required state safety course to get a concealed carry license, why should his license be invalid in New Jersey? His Kansas drivers license is valid in New Jersey, and driving isn't even a constitutional right.
The right to keep and bear arms is a constitutional right. Shouldn't it apply evenly across all 50 states?
McCamy Taylor
(19,240 posts)because you can yell "fire" in a deserted open field. Both protected freedom of speech.
A hunting rifle with a scope that is appropriate in the woods may not be appropriate in DC during the inauguration.
needledriver
(836 posts)if the theater is on fire.
The gun control argument is that you wouldn't even be allowed to have the word fire in a crowded theater. If the theater is actually on fire you can't say anything to warn people because you are not allowed to possess the word.
The OP is about mandatory recognition of out of state concealed carry permits.
My reply was a question whether constitutional rights should apply equally in all 50 states.
You suggested it would be a bad idea to bring a hunting weapon to a Presidential inauguration. I agree. What has that got to do with recognizing an out of state concealed carry permit as part of a uniform interpretation of the right to keep and bear arms across the entire United States?
pnwmom
(108,978 posts)was ever written with the idea that assault weapons would be carried by private individuals.
branford
(4,462 posts)and the weapons they require as part of service are individual weapons of war, i.e., "assault weapons."
As a legal matter, the strict militia perspective on the 2A actually prioritizes "assault weapons" over handguns.
In any event, the law at issue primarily concerns concealed carry handguns, and seeks to treat licenses to own and carry them just like driver's licenses under a full faith and credit regime (and driver's licenses are not constitutionally protected like firearms).
needledriver
(836 posts)The Militia clause of the Second Amendment is simply one example of why the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It is by no means a limitation on the right, nor is the right exclusive to members of the militia. The Supreme Court states that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. However, if you insist that being in the Militia be a prerequisite to bearing arms, keep in mind that the Militia laws define membership in the Militia loosely enough that practically every adult in the United States is a member of the unorganized Militia, and that Militia service requires a weapon suitable for military service. So, membership in the Militia would require that I not own an "assault weapon" (semi automatic tactical sporting rifle) but an actual assault rifle (fully automatic hand held machine gun). Are you sure this is what you want to push for?
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)It is NOT one example. One can't pick and choose what sections to apply, the entire context applies.
The notion that the 2nd amendment would require one to own a semi automatic tactical sporting rifle, much less a fully automatic hand held machine gun is ridiculous beyond belief - they had no concept of what either of those was at the time the Constitution was written. And don't try to trot out that canard about the Swiss air rifle -a rifle that needs to be elevated to a vertical position to reload is no more a semi-automatic weapon that a lever action rifle. An "arm" at that time was single shot, muzzle loaded or a air rifle that was "repeating", but required so much skill to use and maintain that it was not practical. There was simply no contemporary technology that allowed a shot to be fired with a trigger pull, then another shot with nothing more than another trigger pull. That technology did not exist, except maybe in the wet dreams of a scifi gun enthuiast. One may as well argue that current firearm laws are written to consider 30 megawatt, continuous fire palm blasters capable of slicing a skyscraper in two.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)was delivered unto us on a tablet, and is infallible.
Never mind it just gave us Corrupt Trump - "guns."
Buckeye_Democrat
(14,854 posts)How about nuclear weapons? Should we have the legal right to purchase and own them? The military has them.
needledriver
(836 posts)PNW Mom and ThorMN are the ones who think that the right to keep and bear arms is limited to the militia.
Thor, if you promise not to insist that the right to keep and bear arms is limited to the arms available when the Constitution was written, I promise not to insist that you only use methods of free speech available when the Constitution was written.
By the way, it is entirely legal to own a bazooka. You need to have the proper license and permit to own a destructive device, and it is prohibitively expensive.
Nowhere in the Constitution is there a right to weapons of mass destruction, yet for some reason discussions on the right to keep and bear arms frequently descend to reductio ad absurdum nonsense.
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)I did not insist that the right to keep and bear arms is limited to the arms available when the Constitution was written, I called out your ridiculous assertion that the 2nd requires people to keep a semi or full automatic weapon. The authors had no idea what either of those were, and were not requiring anyone to keep or bear arms. Your statement "So, membership in the Militia would require that I not own an "assault weapon" (semi automatic tactical sporting rifle) but an actual assault rifle (fully automatic hand held machine gun)" has nothing at all to do with the 2nd amendment.
I also pointed out that your notion that the militia clause is but one example of the right to keep and bear arms is false. You have avoided defending your position on that. Can you cite another example? Or are these other examples just ignoring parts that you don't want applied?
needledriver
(836 posts)I did not insist that the right to keep and bear arms is limited to the arms available when the Constitution was written,
Then why were you blathering on about Swiss air rifles?
And don't try to trot out that canard about the Swiss air rifle -a rifle that needs to be elevated to a vertical position to reload is no more a semi-automatic weapon that a lever action rifle. An "arm" at that time was single shot, muzzle loaded or a air rifle that was "repeating", but required so much skill to use and maintain that it was not practical. There was simply no contemporary technology that allowed a shot to be fired with a trigger pull, then another shot with nothing more than another trigger pull.
You mean besides a flintlock double barreled shotgun? Whatever. You wrote a pretty well done analysis of the limitations of 18th century firearms technology. What was your point if not to imply that the olde timely guys in powdered wigs who scratched out the Constitution with quill pens on laid paper couldn't possibly have imagined the awesome terrifying destructive power of a 30 megawatt palm blaster that can cut buildings in half? Or something like that. I kind of lost track of what you were driving at.
I called out your ridiculous assertion that the 2nd requires people to keep a semi or full automatic weapon. The authors had no idea what either of those were,
Well, duh.
and were not requiring anyone to keep or bear arms.
Exactly. The people are not required to keep and bear arms. BUT, at least according to your interpretation of the 2nd amendment, if you are in a well regulated militia, you need to keep and bear an arm suitable for militia service.
Your statement "So, membership in the Militia would require that I not own an "assault weapon" (semi automatic tactical sporting rifle) but an actual assault rifle (fully automatic hand held machine gun)" has nothing at all to do with the 2nd amendment.
Well, if you insist that the 2nd amendment has a prerequisite of militia service in order to keep and bear arms, then it follows that at least one of the arms you must keep and bear must be suitable for militia service. The militia of the 18th Century were armed with firelocks more or less identical to those of the regular military - the arms suitable for the militia service at the time. Fast forward to the 21st Century and it stands to reason that the militia would be armed with firearms suitable for militia service, in this case select fire assault rifles. You can't have it both ways. If you have to be in the militia to keep and bear arms you have to be able to keep and bear arms suitable for 21st Century militia service.
I also pointed out that your notion that the militia clause is but one example of the right to keep and bear arms is false. You have avoided defending your position on that. Can you cite another example? Or are these other examples just ignoring parts that you don't want applied?
Sigh. This is too long to cut and paste, but if you want a thoughtful legal opinion from people who have no particular political axe to grind, please read:
http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/common.htm
The simple fact is the militia clause of the 2nd amendment is *a* justification for the right to keep and bear arms, but is by no means the *only* justification.
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)So if we go with your delusions, no one presently has the right to keep and bare arms.
"The simple fact is the militia clause of the 2nd amendment is *a* justification for the right to keep and bear arms, but is by no means the *only* justification. "
What, pray tell, are the others? I've already asked you to cite one, you seem to be coming up empty. (Hint: there are none in the Constitution)
Note, I have not said anything other than point out your delusions and fallacies. You keep wanting to say that I am insisting this and that. The only thing I insist is your stances are false and irrational.
needledriver
(836 posts)So if we go with your delusions, no one presently has the right to keep and bare arms.
Not my delusion. You and PNWMom are the ones who seem to think that being in a well regulated militia is the only reason the people should be allowed to keep and bear arms.
What, pray tell, are the others? I've already asked you to cite one, you seem to be coming up empty.
I thought it was a rhetorical question. You actually can't think of any other use for a firearm than service in the militia? You need my help? Ok. Self defense. Hunting. Sporting. Collecting. Investment.
(Hint: there are none in the Constitution)
And your point is?
Note, I have not said anything other than point out your delusions and fallacies. You keep wanting to say that I am insisting this and that. The only thing I insist is your stances are false and irrational.
You keep using that word "delusional". I do not think that word means what you think it means.
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)I have never said "being in a well regulated militia is the only reason the people should be allowed to keep and bear arms." Those are your words.
You used that as an ridiculous argument that people should be required to keep and carry fully automatic weapons. 
You also tried to claim that "The Militia clause of the Second Amendment is simply one example of why the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.".
Which is it? You are all over the map. Can't have it both ways.
"Self defense. Hunting. Sporting. Collecting. Investment." Nothing in the Constitution about any of those, so the "shall not be infringed" that you hold so dear really doesn't give you that absolute freedom from regulation that you lust after in those endeavors.
You keep wanting to twist, pick and choose parts to get the result that you want. That is as wrong a method in law as it is in science. The fact of the words is that they all apply. The absolute "shall not be infringed" is linked to "well regulated militia". Does that be that the only a militia can keep and bear arms? Absolutely not. A militia may, but that does not exclude Joe Gunwanker from fondling his firearms every night. But the Government may pass laws regulating which weapons Joe may fondle, since he isn't in a militia.
It's not to hard to understand if one does not have a conservative true/false, black/white, binary mentality.
needledriver
(836 posts)Whether you like it or not, the militia clause applies to all of the right to keep and bear arms
You said that. You. You yourself. In your own words. In post #22. You even doubled down:
It is NOT one example. One can't pick and choose what sections to apply, the entire context applies.
Now, you keep using the word "delusional". Do you know what that word really means? Do you need help?
"Characterized by or holding idiosyncratic beliefs or impressions that are contradicted by reality or rational argument, typically as a symptom of mental disorder"
Here is an idiosyncratic belief that is contraindicated by reality: the militia clause applies to all of the right to keep and bear arms.
That the militia clause applies to all of the right to keep and bear arms is not a fact, it is your opinion. Please read the actual legal opinion from people who do this for a living that I linked to above. I do not believe that the militia clause applies to all of the right to keep and bear arms. You do. I am not the one claiming that you must be in a militia to keep and bear arms. You are. I am not the one claiming that the only justification for bearing arms is service in the militia because that is the only example given in the Constitution. You are! So, in the hypothetical situation that you present; that militia service is the only Constitutional justification to keep and bear arms, I simply pointed out that your idiosyncratic interpretation of the 2nd amendment requires that the people keep and bear arms suitable for militia service, which these days are fully automatic select fire weapons. I agree with you that it is a ridiculous argument, but it is not mine - it is yours!
Once you get over the delusion that the militia clause applies to the entire context of the 2nd amendment, you are left with the operative clause: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". That means exactly what it says: the people have the right to keep and bear arms. That right is not limited to militia service. The people have the right to keep and bear arms for any lawful purpose. That right is subject to reasonable limitation - just like every other right in the Constitution! Free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, the right to keep and bear arms - ALL of these are subject to limitation! What makes you think that I lust after absolute freedom from regulation? I am not some caricature of a gun humping Joe Gunwanker. I respect that the right to keep and bear arms is a sober and serious responsibility, and like every other right must be exercised with caution and judgment and an awareness of the context in which it will be used.
Which brings us all the way back to the OP. If a person has passed the tests and training and has been licensed to concealed carry in their home state, why shouldn't they be allowed to concealed carry in other states? Why is the right to keep and bear arms not uniformly regulated throughout the entire United States?
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)I don't have the time to deal with all your misconceptions and fallacies.
Have a nice life, rattle off some more nonsense, and go away thinking you had the last word.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Here, let me help disabuse you of that silly notion. Read the preamble to the BoR:
[div class='excerpt']The Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.
The Bill of Rights was intended as a 'the government shall not' document- "to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers"- not a 'the people can' document. Abuse of whose powers? The government. Rights aren't limited by the bill of rights; rather the scope of protections of certain rights are set. If the Bill of Rights were a listing of all a person's rights, there would be no need for the ninth and tenth amendments ("The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." and "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." respectively.)
If the Bill of Rights encompassed all rights, and only to some proscribed purpose, then there would be no right of travel-- a right firmly established, but absent in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
jhasp
(101 posts)You might want to choose a different example. Anyone age 21 or older in Kansas who owns a gun can carry it concealed with no permit or license. Kansas no longer issues them. This could cause a problem if a Kansan is traveling outside of Kansas with a concealed gun. Are LEOs in all states required to know the conceal carry laws in all other states?
needledriver
(836 posts)I looked on-line for an example of a state which had a reasonable threshold for concealed carry, but I guess the site had out of date information. I live in the county of Los Angeles in the great and enlightened state of California, so for me concealed carry is attainable as a Faberge egg.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)It's much easier to move to a trigger-friendly state than it is to acquire a Fabergé egg... but I doubt that would strengthen your narrative or assist your bias in any meaningful way.
McCamy Taylor
(19,240 posts)
Binkie The Clown
(7,911 posts)So much for pro "state's rights". R's are such flaming hypocrites it makes me sick. n/t
Buckeye_Democrat
(14,854 posts)Things that make me go, "Hmm..."
billh58
(6,635 posts)to be recognized nationwide because of the federal highway system. When you apply the same logic to business licenses, fishing licenses, hunting licenses, construction permits, etc., the fallacy of the argument becomes apparent: each state or municipality owns its own public spaces.
In the Heller decision (a 5-4 Republican decision) even shoot 'em up Scalia stated that the right to own a gun did not preclude restrictions on those rights -- specifically concealed carry in public.
The right to be armed at all times, in all places, for all reasons is not, and never was the intent of the Second Amendment, but the right wingers would like to make it so.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,479 posts)Section. 1.
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Note the second sentence of section 1. Congress is empowered to enforce that states respect such permits issued by other states. Do you have a problem with the Constitution granting that power to congress?
world wide wally
(21,744 posts)their basic training in Mississippi and Alabama
Vinca
(50,273 posts)
CWV
(14 posts)but I'm also Ok with much harsher penalties for those who would illegally use, possess, or transport firearms of any kind. I have more fear of people legally operating cell phones and automobiles than I have for people legally carrying concealed handguns.
HoneyBadger
(2,297 posts)But they would need to obey that state's carry laws. Which are diverse. Obviously if they are ok to carry in one state, there is no real reason that they should not be allowed to carry in every state.
rickford66
(5,523 posts)Let's keep it that way.
HoneyBadger
(2,297 posts)You would never know who was carrying.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)DonnaRx7
(18 posts)everyone should be treated the same.
Just like the 2nd stipulates.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)rickford66
(5,523 posts)I said "referral" but that's the wrong term. Anyway I had to fill in some form and swear to what I wrote. So, I know it's not easy to legally buy and carry a pistol. I think the form was from the Sheriffs Dept.
rickford66
(5,523 posts)Florida, Texas, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina
HoneyBadger
(2,297 posts)You would be shocked. I believe that there are more people carrying legally in midtown than anywhere in the country.
calimary
(81,283 posts)DonnaRx7
(18 posts)Some of us that are weaker than the typical predator appreciate not having to go unarmed when we travel.
saidsimplesimon
(7,888 posts)Are we surprised or even shocked any more by the insanity on steroids?
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)The NRA Republicans will not be happy until firearms are allowed in every public space in America other than whatever public space they themselves happen to be in at any given time.
The NRA is great at branding information, and (via the aptly-named Dickey Amendment) even better at suppressing information.
